Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ukmicky on 05/05/2006 00:42:44
-
Today it was revealed that a 63 year old British woman has undergone IVF treatment in Italy and will in a few months give birth to her third child .When her child is 10 and in need of an active parent the mother will be 73 years old and the father even older and both will in all probability be in no real position to bring up an active 10 years old child . I think its disgusting, how could this women have been allowed to undergo ivf at her age, there has got to be a limit for the sake of the child. she two years away from drawing her state pension for heavens sake.
There are a few cases where a woman may go through menopause unnaturally early but in most cases nature usually knows best and there are reasons why women go through the menopause and become infertile and allowing women beyond 45 to have ivf is madness.
I feel if a women has gone through her menopause and is older than 45 then she should be banned from receiving ivf.
what do you think
Michael
-
Ooooh.....This is a big topic Michael....there are so many ifs and buts about it.
...The thing is....though the childs parents will be ancient when the child becomes 10, at least there IS a child that has a life, whereas if the IVF had not been allowed, the child would have never existed. Now I am not saying I approve of it, and it's perfectly understandable that the comment I just made could be endorsed with any other appropriate circumstance.
Maybe this is why she had to go to Italy, .....do you know if that's why ?...would no one do the procedure here in the Uk ?
However, If I was in the position of making the decision to allow her to have had IVF or not then I would like to know all the relative information and also any circumstantial data surrounding the life-to-be and future of the child.
Deal with each case individually by it's merits.
Initially, it does sound bizarre, and...well...it is really.....it's a toughie !...you'd think, when women have menopause, it's a sign from nature wouldn't you ?...
Just delivering this child by any method may kill her.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
It is a difficult question.
One can look both at the generality and at the specifics of this case.
I don't actually know anything much about this case, other than having seen a newspaper headline, so most of what I will say is about the generic.
Firstly, it may well be unnatural for women to give birth at 63, but society tends to distort the natural. The most natural thing is for women to start bearing children relatively soon after puberty, but in most Western societies this would be illegal. Most Western societies also tend to promote the notion that women should first focus on their education, then on their career, and only after that on having children. Thus we have a situation where increasingly women are simply running out of time to have children before the onset of menopause; so it is logical that women should increasingly be asking to have children beyond the onset of menopause.
Additional to this is the fact that increasing lifespans makes it a more viable option to believe that a woman of 55 might be as likely to see her child grow to adulthood as a woman of 40 might have done a few centuries ago.
Clearly, such an argument cannot reasonably be used for a woman who already has 2 children and is looking to have a 3rd.
The other factor to bear in mind is that while it is true that parents may be more active at an earlier age, bringing up children is becoming an increasingly expensive business, and if people spend their early years building up their financial resources, then at least in their later years they might be able to give their children the financial security they could not have given them when they were young.
Nor is the argument about the physical capabilities of older people that much of an argument. It is true that in the past parents have been younger, but nonetheless it was not at all uncommon for busy parents to leave much of the upbringing of their children to the grandparents. If the grandparents have the capacity to bring up their children's children, then why cannot they bring up their own children?
My own attitude is that while I would not rush into applying IVF to older people, I would gradually explore the possibility, and react to the situation as it developed. It might work, it may have some slight problems that might be mitigated one way or another, or it may develop overwhelming problems. There is good reason to believe that it could be made to work, and it is clear that in the present society there will be increasing demand for it.
George
-
quote:
...The thing is....though the childs parents will be ancient when the child becomes 10, at least there IS a child that has a life, whereas if the IVF had not been allowed, the child would have never existed.
The end dosent justify the means quote:
Maybe this is why she had to go to Italy, .....do you know if that's why ?...would no one do the procedure here in the Uk ?
I'm not sure of the uk age restritions but i believe she is around about 15 years too old to have ivf in the uk
Michael
-
Is it the female version of the Geppetto - Pinocchio syndrome? It isn't a good idea for any woman of the age described from a health perspective.
The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open. -- A. Einstein
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimBob
It isn't a good idea for any woman of the age described from a health perspective.
Giving birth was always dangerous. The risks have been substantially reduced, and I suspect that it is safer for a 63 y.o. woman to give birth today than it was for a 20 y.o. in the middle ages (or indeed in many third world countries today).
Ofcourse the risks increase with age, and even today the risks for a 43 y.o. woman exceed those for a 20 y.o. woman; but who is to proscribe what risks may be permitted and what forbidden? Should 63 y.o. women be forbidden from mountain climbing?
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
Firstly, it may well be unnatural for women to give birth at 63, but society tends to distort the natural. The most natural thing is for women to start bearing children relatively soon after puberty, but in most Western societies this would be illegal. Most Western societies also tend to promote the notion that women should first focus on their education, then on their career, and only after that on having children. Thus we have a situation where increasingly women are simply running out of time to have children before the onset of menopause;
That’s life.
quote:
Additional to this is the fact that increasing life spans makes it a more viable option to believe that a woman of 55 might be as likely to see her child grow to adulthood as a woman of 40 might have done a few centuries ago.
We maybe living longer but that don’t necessarily mean that women should be giving birth to children beyond the point which their bodies and nature has determined they should be and if us living longer healthier lives meant that it was ok for women to give birth later in life then I’m sure their bodies would adapt and adopt this change naturally. Evolution has done a damn good job up to now and we are messing with it too much in this instance.
quote:
The other factor to bear in mind is that while it is true that parents may be more active at an earlier age, bringing up children is becoming an increasingly expensive business, and if people spend their early years building up their financial resources, then at least in their later years they might be able to give their children the financial security they could not have given them when they were young.
Nothing wrong with that however logic says there should be a cut off point. Which should be determined by factors such as dangers to the child as it develops in the womb and also at its birth? and the future health and fitness of the parents and the ability of them to look after the child, but not just at the time of birth but also to and beyond the point of adolescence. And so the cut off point/age should always be before the mother is old.
quote:
Nor is the argument about the physical capabilities of older people that much of an argument. It is true that in the past parents have been younger, but nonetheless it was not at all uncommon for busy parents to leave much of the upbringing of their children to the grandparents. If the grandparents have the capacity to bring up their children's children, then why cannot they bring up their own children?
No, children need to be and should be mainly brought up by their parent that’s why they are the parents. Children need Parents who can keep up with them if possible, parents who have a mind more in tune with the society that the children are born into, parents who are less likely to die before their children reach adolescence, parents who are strong enough in mind and body to protect and control their children.
Grandparents are ok for stories or for looking after the child occasionally but the parents of the child are the people who should have primary responsibility in bringing up their children.
Michael
-
Unless it is deemed severely inappropriate to enable a 63 year old to have children, ie:because it's a very very high risk of danger to the mother and /or child insofar, that to do the procedure would lead to imminent disaster,....then I can understand why very easily as to why there should be protest...
.......but, if we can indeed deliver a baby safely then do we really have the right to stop someone bearing a child healthily ?..Can you really just deny that human function and right of someone ?
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
Thus we have a situation where increasingly women are simply running out of time to have children before the onset of menopause;
That’s life.
Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean that we may not look at means to mitigate it (particularly since the situation itself is a consequence of social pressure, not of natural design).
Do we have to simply accept everything the way things are? We never have before.
quote:
We maybe living longer but that don’t necessarily mean that women should be giving birth to children beyond the point which their bodies and nature has determined they should be and if us living longer healthier lives meant that it was ok for women to give birth later in life then I’m sure their bodies would adapt and adopt this change naturally. Evolution has done a damn good job up to now and we are messing with it too much in this instance.
But is not social change also a matter of evolution?
Is not the invention of penicillin also a fact of evolution – i.e. humans evolved the capability to invent penicillin. If we can evolve to invent penicillin, then why not evolve to invent ways to overcome the limitations of the menopause?
quote:
Nothing wrong with that however logic says there should be a cut off point. Which should be determined by factors such as dangers to the child as it develops in the womb and also at its birth? and the future health and fitness of the parents and the ability of them to look after the child, but not just at the time of birth but also to and beyond the point of adolescence. And so the cut off point/age should always be before the mother is old.
This may be so, but exactly how rigid should that cut-off point be?
What was a valid cut-off 100 years ago need not be a valid cut-off today. Unless we keep pushing the boundaries, we simply remain where we always were.
All IVF carries additional risks, and so this might be an argument against using IVF at all.
Having a child, for any woman over the age of 30, will always carry additional risks, and even more so as the woman reaches 40 or over (and particularly if it is her first child). This might be an argument for prohibiting women over the age of 30 from having a child at all (or at least, from having their first child at that age).
Many of the issues of later pregnancies are in fact probably slightly mitigated by IVF, since some of the risks associated with age will depend on the age of the egg donor rather than the birth mother.
Nonetheless, I accept that there is a heightened risk (the more so while the procedure remains experimental), but as I said, who is to judge what is an acceptable and an unacceptable risk?
quote:
No, children need to be and should be mainly brought up by their parent that’s why they are the parents. Children need Parents who can keep up with them if possible, parents who have a mind more in tune with the society that the children are born into, parents who are less likely to die before their children reach adolescence, parents who are strong enough in mind and body to protect and control their children.
Grandparents are ok for stories or for looking after the child occasionally but the parents of the child are the people who should have primary responsibility in bringing up their children.
This may be an ideal situation, but the world has never been ideal.
Unless you are arguing that only ideal situations should be permitted, and any situation that is less than ideal should be prohibited (thus any child who is orphaned should have their life terminated, since they may no longer be brought up by their parents), otherwise you must implicitly accept that the less than ideal is acceptable.
Children do not need, and never have needed, to be brought up by their parents. It maybe a preferable situation where this occurs, but there is a strong distinction between preferable and necessary.
I was not brought up by my parents. I was brought up by my parent (singular) but not my parents (plural). You might argue that this less than ideal upbringing has made me a less ideal adult – I cannot say. Maybe society would have been a better place if my life was terminated at the same time as my parents marriage was terminated – others must judge that better than I can.
George
-
This is the first I've heard of this story. Although George presented some good arguments, I have to agree with Michael. I can't imagine giving birth now at 40, let alone 63. When this child is 16, she will be 79. Keeping up with the shenanigans of a 16 year old is hard work. I just can't imagine someone near 80 being able to handle that.
Both sets of grandparents were tremendous assets when it came to raising our children. The advice and the help they gave helped us tremendously. However, when it came down to the brass tacks, WE were the ones responsible for the children. When they got on the grandparents nerves, they came home.
I don't know any of the circumstances and I truly don't want to sound judgemental, but it just seems selfish to me. Yes, she is bringing a child into the world, but what quality of life is this child going to have.
Carolyn
-
quote:
Originally posted by Carolyn
This is the first I've heard of this story. Although George presented some good arguments, I have to agree with Michael. I can't imagine giving birth now at 40, let alone 63. When this child is 16, she will be 79. Keeping up with the shenanigans of a 16 year old is hard work. I just can't imagine someone near 80 being able to handle that.
Both sets of grandparents were tremendous assets when it came to raising our children. The advice and the help they gave helped us tremendously. However, when it came down to the brass tacks, WE were the ones responsible for the children. When they got on the grandparents nerves, they came home.
I don't know any of the circumstances and I truly don't want to sound judgemental, but it just seems selfish to me. Yes, she is bringing a child into the world, but what quality of life is this child going to have.
Carolyn
I'm playing devils advocate.
Carolyn/Michael,
If the case can be demonstrated to you to your complete satisfaction that the child will enjoy a wonderful life and continue to enjoy it after the parents are no longer around, then would you still say no?
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
Gosh. I honestly don't know Neil. Again, I don't want to be judgemental in this. My Grandmother had her second child at 42. He is 2 years older than me. Although my grandparents were wonderful people, life was never easy for my uncle. As Michael said earlier,
quote:
Children need Parents who can keep up with them if possible, parents who have a mind more in tune with the society that the children are born into
my uncle didn't have this, and he did suffer. He went through alot of stuff he shouldn't have had to deal with. That's not to say that I'm not glad he was born. He is like a big brother and I love him dearly.
I loved my Grandma very much, and I still miss her. She would've given any one of us the shirt off her back if we needed it. I would never think of calling her selfish.
So Neil, I truly still don't know how to answer your question. Perhaps selfish was to harsh. Part of me admires her courage and desire to raise a child at her age, and another part of me wonders if this woman is just insane. I guess I need to think on it some more.
Carolyn
-
Thanks Carolyn,
as i said, I'm just playing devils advocate here.
We are all going to lose our parents. It can happen at any time and it's a fact of life. You can not stop it and it can not be ignored !
Society, family, friends have a way of looking after ophans and most lead long normalhappy lives , who then go on to become parents themselves.
I think, If I could choose to have a life with a short time with my folks against having no life whatsoever, I would choose Life !
I know this is a corny phrase and its out of context here, but I think it may be appropriate when I say it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.[:)]
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
I know this is a corny phrase and its out of context here, but I think it may be appropriate when I say it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.[:)]
I agree.[:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Carolyn
Gosh. I honestly don't know Neil. Again, I don't want to be judgemental in this. My Grandmother had her second child at 42. He is 2 years older than me. Although my grandparents were wonderful people, life was never easy for my uncle. As Michael said earlier, quote:
Children need Parents who can keep up with them if possible, parents who have a mind more in tune with the society that the children are born into
my uncle didn't have this, and he did suffer. He went through alot of stuff he shouldn't have had to deal with. That's not to say that I'm not glad he was born. He is like a big brother and I love him dearly.
He may have gone through difficulties, but did he turn out the worse for them?
As I said above, there are many reasons why a child's upbringing is less than ideal (although children can be incredibly resilient, particularly if they grow up in a supportive environment, no matter how imperfect that environment is in other ways).
There are many marriages that break up. At least, when a child is born to older parents, and the parents have been together for a while, at least one might assume that the likelihood that the marriage wont last the distance is reduced.
quote:
Originally posted by Carolyn
I have to agree with Michael. I can't imagine giving birth now at 40, let alone 63. When this child is 16, she will be 79. Keeping up with the shenanigans of a 16 year old is hard work. I just can't imagine someone near 80 being able to handle that.
Clearly that is right for you, but one of the beauties of human life is that we are all different.
One thing that can be said is that if this is the ladies 3rd child, at least she knows what she's up against.
One of my friends had a second pair of children when she was in her forties (at a time when, although clearly prematurely, she believed she might already have gone through the menopause), when her first set were already about 10 years old. It never seemed to faze her, and in my opinion, it provided a wonderful education for the older children, since it allowed them to take on some responsibility for the younger children, and I think it will make them better parents when it comes time for them to have their own children.
One of the things that is, in my view, a modern problem with parenting, is that families are small and compact, and children growing up have very little opportunity to observe very much younger siblings, and develop the skills for parenting, until they come to the age of being thrown in at the deep end.
George
-
Kids need young people around them for them to be kids
My father in-law is now 80 but when he was only 70 if we were around there with the kids we had to keep them quite because the older he got the grumpier he got as he lost his tolerance to the noise of the kids playing.
There are also these things those old parents just couldn’t do which they need to be able to do
Like when my daughter rang the house a few years back because a man was bothering her as she walked up my street. Even though my street is a mile long and I was in my Jim jams I was there by her side fully clothed within a few minutes.
When my son and daughter get married i want to be their by their side and not in my grave or being supported by a Zimmer frame.
When my son or daughter get brave and playfully try to take me on I’m able to fight back and win, if I was eighty I would be to frail for them to try.
When my kids have children I will be young enough to be hopefully still be alive, meaning they will have grandparents. I would also like to be young and fit enough to play with them in the park with a ball maybe.
When me and the missus die I would like my children to be old and mature enough to deal with it and not just emotionally.
I could go on. So many things to do with children require the parents and grandparents to be as young as possible.
Michael
-
I have googled this and can't find any info on this particular woman. Can any of you tell me where I can read of this womans story?
Carolyn
-
Are people more upset about a mother at 63, rather than a father at 63 (like Michael Douglas)?
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
Kids need young people around them for them to be kids
My father in-law is now 80 but when he was only 70 if we were around there with the kids we had to keep them quite because the older he got the grumpier he got as he lost his tolerance to the noise of the kids playing.
There are also these things those old parents just couldn’t do which they need to be able to do
Like when my daughter rang the house a few years back because a man was bothering her as she walked up my street. Even though my street is a mile long and I was in my Jim jams I was there by her side fully clothed within a few minutes.
When my son and daughter get married i want to be their by their side and not in my grave or being supported by a Zimmer frame.
When my son or daughter get brave and playfully try to take me on I’m able to fight back and win, if I was eighty I would be to frail for them to try.
When my kids have children I will be young enough to be hopefully still be alive, meaning they will have grandparents. I would also like to be young and fit enough to play with them in the park with a ball maybe.
When me and the missus die I would like my children to be old and mature enough to deal with it and not just emotionally.
I could go on. So many things to do with children require the parents and grandparents to be as young as possible.
I agree, this is an modern ideal.
The problem is that the ideal is often deviated from.
Ofcourse, in the past, middle class children were often brought up be nannies – that was a different ideal.
Even in the modern world, it is seen proper to pack children off to school for the core of each day for much of their childhood (in some cases, children are even sent to boarding schools).
Ofcourse, the arguments you put forward, I have seen very similar arguments stated by a young woman who was a grandmother in her late thirties or early forties, who had had her child when she was legally below the age of consent. She also said how wonderful it was to have a child so young, and still be young when the grandchildren are around, and still to have a useful and youthful life after your kids have grown up. Yet, what she did was illegal.
Can one really say that there is one particular correct formula that everyone should adhere to. Each has its advantages and disadvantages – so why is it ok to have children at 26 or 46, but not 16 or 56? Does not each scenario have its own disadvantages and advantages.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by Carolyn
I have googled this and can't find any info on this particular woman. Can any of you tell me where I can read of this womans story?
Carolyn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4971930.stm
George
-
even disregarding all physical rationale, i dont think, socially speaking, a parent should be so many generations apart from its child.
theres a certain way a parent and child relate when they are say, 25-35 years apart that just wouldnt be the same for 63 years apart. a parent has to be at least somewhat privvy to the goings-on of their childs generation, and even if 63 year old parents could keep up at birth, when the child goes into the real world at 18-22, its very doubtful that a 81-85 year old could, assuming they were still alive.
then the child has not only not had a parent they can relate to, and no grandparents since birth(probably), but wont have parents in early adult hood at all, the closest thing being if they have parent-age brothers and sisters.
i think its a little nuts really... but i dont think we can litigate it. its a right of every woman to get the procedure and have kids and every doctor to perform it as they feel appropriate. lets just hope most seniors dont have a late life crisis(which seems to be this particular womans trip)
-
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
even disregarding all physical rationale, i dont think, socially speaking, a parent should be so many generations apart from its child.
theres a certain way a parent and child relate when they are say, 25-35 years apart that just wouldnt be the same for 63 years apart. a parent has to be at least somewhat privvy to the goings-on of their childs generation, and even if 63 year old parents could keep up at birth, when the child goes into the real world at 18-22, its very doubtful that a 81-85 year old could, assuming they were still alive.
then the child has not only not had a parent they can relate to, and no grandparents since birth(probably), but wont have parents in early adult hood at all, the closest thing being if they have parent-age brothers and sisters.
i think its a little nuts really... but i dont think we can litigate it. its a right of every woman to get the procedure and have kids and every doctor to perform it as they feel appropriate. lets just hope most seniors dont have a late life crisis(which seems to be this particular womans trip)
You talk about parents, but is this really about parents, or about mothers (fathers having children at that age is quite ordinary, even if still uncommon).
Is this fuss about the fact that it is a woman, and no such fuss being made about men who become fathers at 63?
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
even disregarding all physical rationale, i dont think, socially speaking, a parent should be so many generations apart from its child.
theres a certain way a parent and child relate when they are say, 25-35 years apart that just wouldnt be the same for 63 years apart. a parent has to be at least somewhat privvy to the goings-on of their childs generation, and even if 63 year old parents could keep up at birth, when the child goes into the real world at 18-22, its very doubtful that a 81-85 year old could, assuming they were still alive.
then the child has not only not had a parent they can relate to, and no grandparents since birth(probably), but wont have parents in early adult hood at all, the closest thing being if they have parent-age brothers and sisters.
i think its a little nuts really... but i dont think we can litigate it. its a right of every woman to get the procedure and have kids and every doctor to perform it as they feel appropriate. lets just hope most seniors dont have a late life crisis(which seems to be this particular womans trip)
You talk about parents, but is this really about parents, or about mothers (fathers having children at that age is quite ordinary, even if still uncommon).
Is this fuss about the fact that it is a woman, and no such fuss being made about men who become fathers at 63?
George
But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.
So, in your opinion, it is perfectly legitimate for a 63 year old woman to have a baby, so long as her husband was under 50 years of age?
George
-
I'm still in two minds about this situation.
Parents ARE important !..but children are strong and resolute...they will still grow without parents. Parents perform a vital role, they procreate.
I notice only Carlyn commented on my question above..not forcing the issue but am curious............hmm !
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
We are all going to lose our parents. It can happen at any time and it's a fact of life. You can not stop it and it can not be ignored !
Society, family, friends have a way of looking after ophans and most lead long normalhappy lives , who then go on to become parents themselves.
This is a very complicated issue.
I have a friend who, about 18 months ago, lost her partner (sudden heart failure). They had a 16 year old son. Her partner was 39 years of age at the time, she was around 52.
Both she and her son have had difficulties coming to terms with the loss, her son particularly so (don't know whether it was a good or bad thing, but the son was present when his father collapsed, the mother was not). I don't know what the details of the situation are, but I understand that 18 months later, the son is still affected by the trauma.
My mother, through the consequence of war, lost her father (and very many other members of her family) when she was 14 years old. Because of my mother's nature, she is not someone who will allow any public display of weakness, so it is not easily possible to say what long term effects came from this experience.
Just as with any major physical trauma, so too with the emotional trauma of the loss of one's parents, it does leave a permanent scar that will remain as long as the person lives with it; but it does not prevent the person from living a substantially normal life (in fact, one might even say that the accumulation of such scars forms a part of normality for us all, in one way or another).
A far worse situation (in my view) than the death of one's parents, is the situation that has befallen another of my friends. Her parents were alive until a few years ago (she is now in her early 40's), but because of various childhood traumas, she largely distanced herself from her family (not just her parents, but the network of support that an extended family can bring). A few weeks ago, she had a nervous breakdown, and she had absolutely no family support available to her (had she had such a support network, maybe the breakdown itself could have been averted). Her friends have tried to rally around, but we cannot fully make up for the role that a family would have given. Her loss of family had nothing to to with the death of her parents, but because she had chosen to distance herself from her family.
I do know of family friends who did lose their entire extended family during the war, and they are the only surviving member of their family; and there is no doubt that this has put them at a serious psychological disadvantage.
quote:
I think, If I could choose to have a life with a short time with my folks against having no life whatsoever, I would choose Life !
Ofcourse you would – none of us would wish to imagine not having even as little as we have.
The trouble is that this is the same argument that can be used by the pro-life lobby that would argue against any form of contraception or abortion – each of which removes the possibility for a life that potentially could be born, and that in almost all cases, the child having been born, will say that do not wish they had not been born. Where do you draw the line – should women have as many children as they are physically capable of having, since every one they do not have will be the loss of a child that might well, when born, say the are glad to be alive? If women do not have 20 or 30 children in their lifetime, then where do you draw the line, and why?
quote:
I know this is a corny phrase and its out of context here, but I think it may be appropriate when I say it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.[:)]
The phrase usually refers to a very different context, and one in which my experience is limited, and hence would not care to comment much about.
In terms of the context we have here, ofcourse I have lost grandparents (and in practical terms, lost a father, even though he was, and is, still alive). In the case of my father, I was too young to remember what such a loss may or may not have meant; in terms of my grandparents (the three that I knew), ofcourse I did appreciate the time I had with them, and am glad I knew them for the time I did (but none were lost to me until I was in my twenties).
George
-
Thank You George,
I did say that phrase was out of context.[:)] (re:...having loved tehn lost etc)
I lost my father when I was seven, my mother then jumped into the deep end of the family business and because she did so well, has hepled my siblings and I a great deal.
I personally do not feel as if I have ever missed out. Though , I obviously have still received the benefit of having one parent.
Where I said I would choose life with no parents over no life at all...I was making the point that If I had been a child born to very elderly parents then at least, I would have been in a position to ask that question.
I am so sorry to hear about your friends loss, and then to hear of the trauma of your other friends nervous breakdown.It's all very sad
The question I was originally refering to was in fact this one "If the case can be demonstrated to you to your complete satisfaction that the child will enjoy a wonderful life and continue to enjoy it after the parents are no longer around, then would you still say no?"
Thank you for adressing the other post though. My thoughts are with your friends....
....as you say...it IS such a complicated issue that I can only see that each case must be dealt with on an individual basis and we of course do not know the entire background of this womans case.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
....as you say...it IS such a complicated issue that I can only see that each case must be dealt with on an individual basis and we of course do not know the entire background of this womans case.
I think I meant even more than that. It is not just that each case should be judged on its own merits, but that to a very substantial extent, you cannot possibly even hope to judge the outcome of a persons life. Even as they live their lives, can you really say what is a good or a bad life.
As I said, my father left when I was 4 years old, but the other side of that is that I now have two half siblings, with whom I have a very good relationship with, that simply would not have been born if my father had stayed married to my mother.
You have said that your fathers death also gave you opportunities as it gave your mother the opportunity (however it was not her wish) to develop her skills. That too was the case with my mother, and I doubt that she would ever have got into computing had she still been married.
I spoke of my friend who has had a nervous breakdown. I am sure that she presently feels that life is scarcely worth living, but I have known that friend for many years, and have known her when life was good to her, as I am sure it will be again – so can we say that she should have had a different life? Her different life may not have brought the trauma she presently has, but neither would it have brought her the good times.
The children born unto this 63 year old woman will be different from you or I, but then, they never were going to be the same, because we are all different. No matter what, can we honestly say that a child will have a good or a bad life just because of the age of its parents?
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
But in the cases where the farther is old like say rod stewart their is a mother who is not.A child needs at least one full time parent who is not old and drawing their pension.
So, in your opinion, it is perfectly legitimate for a 63 year old woman to have a baby, so long as her husband was under 50 years of age?
George
No because mothers are different and more important to a child than a father and i'm not saying we fathers are not needed or are unimportant,
Michael
-
Michael, in what way are mothers more important to their children than the fathers ?
Yes, mothers carry them, give birth to them..
..Say...the mother in this case, is the one with the career and it is the husband who stays at home as a domestic engineer !...would not he, the father, play the exact same role as if it was the mother ?
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
No because mothers are different and more important to a child than a father and i'm not saying we fathers are not needed or are unimportant,
If we are being stereotypical, is it not the case that most of the kind of physical activity which you regard as a necessity for a parent/child relationship is actually carried out by the father, with the mother being more responsible for the more emotional support side of the relationship.
Ofcourse, these are stereotypes. There are some women who are extremely tom-boyish, and some fathers who are very touchy-feely. There are also some father who quite successfully bring up children with the total absence of a mother. But, if we constrain ourselves to the traditional gender roles, then one has to ask whether the ability for a woman to be sporty is a prime requirement for a mother?
George
-
i really did just mean parent and not particulary mother. i dont think a father should be many generations apart from his child either. my reasons were sexless... although the mother is obviously more in question because she ultimately chooses to birth the child.